Who is Veronica Guerin?

Last year, I had the chance to watch the film entitled “Veronica Guerin”. This film is based on a true story about Veronica Guerin (played by Cate Blanchett), an Irish journalist and a reporter for The Sunday Independent, Ireland’s leading newspaper, who exposed some of Dublin's most powerful crime barons and drug lords in 1996. In that same year she was gunned down by assassins hired by the same criminal drug lords she exposed.

Veronica paid a very dear price for her passion for truth and liberty: her very own life. She was afraid because she knew the risks attached to her profession and she was well aware of the dangers not only of being hurt but also of being killed. She was terrified when one of the drug lords threatened her that he would abduct her son and kill her if she would press charges again him. In one of the scenes that she even threw up out of fear and told her husband not to tell anyone that she was actually afraid.

Veronica’s search for the truth was worthwhile because she was able to awaken the awareness of people to make a campaign against crime and drug addiction. At first, it seemed she was all alone in this battle but at the end everybody was crying out the same desire that she had.

One of the most interesting scenes in the film, journalistically speaking is when Veronica and an envoy of the drug lords were talking inside a bar where she was being bribed to stop the reports she was doing about the drug lords. Guerin told the envoy that she could not be paid and went away leaving him in the pub. Veronica, as a professional, was not afraid and not hesitant to say NO to the offer.

Her death was not in vain or useless because it served as a spark, a push to move the people to fight against crime and drug addiction maybe not only in Dublin but also all over Ireland. What she initiated was continued by the people who saw that Veronica Guerin died for a very good cause. ®

Media and Moral Degradation

Now a days, if you watch news on TV, read the newspapers, listen to the radio, it seems that all we see, read and hear are about negative things: killings, wars, famine, corruption, same sex marriage, prostitution, global warming, pollution, etc. It is good that we are informed and updated about these issues and all the things that are happening around us but it seems we do not see anymore good things that are happening around us because everything is negative, everything is hopeless. Again, media plays a big role in this so-called moral degradation; instead of boosting the morale of the people, media degrades it by showing the negative side of everything. Media sometimes presents something that uplifts the morality of people but most of the times it is doing the opposite. How does this happen?

Media likes to sensationalize everything, from personalities, events, issues, objects, etc. For example, a certain scandal becomes the talk of the town because media would amplify it by making it the front page of newspapers for several days and becomes and becomes the topic of endless argument and discussion on TV and radio stations. I think it is not bad that the people should become aware of such scandal but to discuss all the minute details of that scandal on newspapers, TV and radio stations is too much; I would call this as “over killing”. But unfortunately, this happens all the time.

Media should become an agent, which boost morality among its audience especially the young people. The younger generation is not yet mature enough in terms of decision making and their morality so they are easily influenced by what they see around them. So, if the media presents only this one sided view of reality as something negative then young people become morally disoriented or degraded. To be more concrete, if young people see that corruption is rampant in the society and that everything is doing it then they will grow up also as corrupt individuals. If they see around them through media that it is all right to marry now and divorce later as if nothing happened they will grow up doing the same thing. These things will happen likely because young people are like “sponges”, that they easily absorb what they see, read, hear around them. This is why media plays a very important role in the lives of these young individuals.

I think the media should be balanced in presenting issues, comments, discussions, arguments etc. It should not only make people aware of the problems that are existing in the society but it should also make people aware of the solutions to these problems that are being initiated or implemented. Oftentimes, the issue of poverty is much discussed by many as only a problem but only few discuss solutions or remedies to alleviate people from poverty if it cannot be totally eradicated. If media presents the positive side of things and the solutions to many problems this could boost the morale of the people that despite all the problems that we have in the society there is still hope.

Media and Violence

Looking at the movies being made now a days there are always two things that are obviously presented in these movies: sex and violence. How is it that sex and violence are very common in the movies we watch in cinemas and even in TV although not much compared to cinema? Because as sex sells, so violence also sells! At present, people say that a movie is good if it is full of “action” that is, full of violence and from time to time a sex scene is shown although not always explicit but most of the times implicit, suggestive and provocative!

Why do people, young and old alike, like movies full of action or violence? Usually, people like movies with a lot of movements, a lot of action, a lot of fighting, a lot of killing, etc. This is because these kinds of movies offer to the audience the feeling of being “thrilled” by the actions they see in the movie and they are not obliged to think too much about the story or plot of the movie because they are more interested in the turn of the events through the actions full of impact in each and every scene. In short, they do not have to exert effort just to follow the dialogues of the actors and actresses, the twist and turns of events and whole plot of the movie itself. They are simply amazed by the “stunts” done by the protagonists who fight and kill the bad guys. This is what makes them tell that a movie is good if it is full of action and violence even though it does not have a well thought of plot or story. And I think this is also the reason why movies full of violence are almost all the same in their plot or story, that the good guys kill the bad guys or vice versa, because people are not anymore after plot or the flow of the story of the movie, they are more interested in fighting and in the killing presented in the movie.

Media Ownership in the Philippines

In the Philippines, media is mostly controlled by those people whom we call “tycoons”, that is by wealthy and powerful persons or families in business or industry. The Philippine government owns just one television network, a couple of radio stations and a newspaper and all the rest are already owned by these wealthy and powerful people. Thus, the media, in all its aspects is controlled by the private sector in my country.

Since the American period in the 1920s, the mass media in the Philippines have been dominated by individual business and political interests. In the Marcos era, the President’s cronies owned and controlled the media. Their control ended as soon as Corazon Aquino took over power from Marcos in 1989. Dozens of new newspapers were set up, TV and radio empires returned from exile to reclaim their properties which were confiscated by the Marcos regime. The old order re-emerged; powerful families again saw the media as their domain. The majority owners of the most influential daily, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, for example, include real estate and food manufacturing interests. Manila Bulletin owner Emilio Yap has interests in shipping and other ventures. The two biggest media networks are owned by companies of wealthy families. ABS-CBN is owned by the Lopez family and the GMA network by the Gozon-Duavit-Jimenez family. ABS-CBN is a multimedia company that has 33 TV stations all over the country, 20 FM and nine AM radio stations, and subsidiaries and affiliates in video/audio postproduction, film production and distribution, and audio recording and distribution. It runs a cable TV network and is also a cable TV and Internet provider. Furthermore it owns a number of magazines and printing press.

The GMA network is also a multimedia company, and has subsidiaries and affiliates in film production and distribution, music and video production, radio and the Internet.

Media in the Philippines is a monopoly of some rich families who are involved in various businesses all over the country and they are the ones in control of media. It is true that… “I soldi, il denaro controllano i media.” There are many disadvantages of this monopoly but somehow they have been responsible of the development of media in the Philippines, maybe without them media would not have been the same as it is now. And maybe without them or their support, media would not have developed well.

Want some relaxation?

How do we get entertainment, amusement or enjoyment from media? Anyone who would like to relax or to breathe some fresh air after a day’s work finds that there are various means that could be used for entertainment or enjoyment like the television, cinema, radio, magazines, newspapers, internet, etc. but normally TV, radio and cinema are the most common. Why? It is not simply because we feel relaxed when we watch a TV program or a film in a cinema but it is because we tend to identify ourselves with the persons and situations that we see in the television or in the cinema. This is the reason why many people love to watch soap operas because they present stories of concrete experiences in life like the family, love story, married life, envy, work, etc. that people can easily identify with. They may not be real stories of real persons but people find contentment and enjoyment in watching these kinds of programs because they somehow can communicate with what is being presented or conveyed in what they are watching since they share the same experiences, situations and even emotions.

Enjoyment, amusement and entertainment are not bad at all and very useful as long as we know how to use them properly. I think one factor that causes “burn-out” is that we never find time to have enjoyment for ourselves at least once in a while if not every time and media is just around the corner to help us out. ®

Popular Religiosity

A most important cultural-religious element at work in the appropriation of Catholicism has to do with “feeling” as a manner of perception. The language of popular religiosity is “body language.” It understands realities and expresses its deepest feelings and thoughts through this language because the body “feels.” The various senses enable the body to truly experience and to communicate. It is important to recognize the significance of bodily knowing (=understanding) and bodily language (=communicating). The body knows, and the body communicates through integrated sensing and expressing. When it is at ease, the body relaxes; when it senses tension, there is rigidity in behavior. Quite often bodily pains are the body’s way of communicating that there are things that need to be attended to in our deepest selves. Modern society is only too familiar with emotionally induced illnesses.

The greatest awareness in families takes place through touch, being touched and touching (bodily knowing and communicating). Is it not at times the most precious mutual awareness of each other that one has? Think for a moment of how a newly born baby primarily knows that he or she is welcome and loved. Certainly, not by sight because the new eyes are not functional for some time; not by hearing a language because that still has to be learned. How then? By touch, by the embrace and cuddling of parents, the sound of their voices which increasingly become familiar, as well as the warmth and smell of their bodies -- all these so closely intertwined with each other -- giving a total bodily word which is received as love. ®

Why is it important to understand Fundamentalism?

Why is it important to understand fundamentalism? Fundamentalism is incompatible with freedom of religion. The basis of freedom of religion is respect for other peoples right to disagree with you. To have freedom of religion, you must respect the right of others to believe something that you think is wrong. Fundamentalism is incompatible with democracy. Democracy is based on the belief that people with radically different beliefs and cultures can live together in peace if they respect each others rights to disagree. It is an essential characteristic of a democracy that the majority rules. However, what we frequently forget is that in a democracy, the majority cannot do whatever they want. For a democracy to survive, the majority must protect the rights of the minorities. The majority must limit themselves and their actions to those that are in the best interest of the society as a whole.

Fundamentalism is incompatible with Christianity. Christianity is the religion of freedom. It is the religion of tolerance and diversity. Christianity is a religion for all peoples in all cultures in all times. Fundamentalism is dedicated to cultural homogeneity and fixed behavior patterns, to unchanging traditions and conventions for governing social interactions. Fundamentalism is about condemning sin when you see it and taking a stand for what is "right." Christianity is about caring for the sinner as much as the saint, it is about understanding the factors that contribute to destructive behavior and leading those who have destroyed themselves, their families, and their friends to healing and forgiveness. Fundamentalists would have us believe that they are the guardians of Christian fundamentals but they are not. They are the guardians of their own position, culture, and power.

Human progress is essentially a search for truth. To the extent that fundamentalism blocks or impedes that search for the truth, it blocks or impedes human progress. True religion is a relentless search for and acceptance of truth about yourself and the universe in which you find yourself regardless of the discomfort that truth may cause. Fundamentalism must be confronted with education. It is obvious that the best innoculant against any form of ignorance is education. And make no mistake, fundamentalism is a form of spectacular ignorance, ignorance of the basic principles of true religion… It is no coincidence that fundamentalism has arisen in America at the same time that the public education system has collapsed. And it is also no coincidence that fundamentalism is strongest in America and elsewhere in the world wherever the educational system is at its weakest. ®

Is there something good in Televangelism?

Since the beginnings of commercial radio, evangelical Christians have recognized the effectiveness of the broadcast media as a vehicle for disseminating their faith. By enabling them to reach new audiences as well as committed believers, broadcasting has provided evangelists with a means of building large and widespread followings. As a result, religious broadcasters have continually taken advantage of new broadcast technologies, from local radio programs in the early 1920s to 24-hour cable television networks by the late 1970s. The use of television by evangelists as a medium for expressing their views proved to be an especially influential development during the last quarter of the twentieth century, as conflicts between religious conservatives and mainstream popular culture grew. In this context, the term "televangelism" became widely adopted to describe the use of broadcasting to promote not only evangelical Christian beliefs, but also a wide range of social and political views espoused by Christian fundamentalists.

But televangelism was a failure because of so many controversies and criticisms. Some of the reasons are the following: emphasis on supernatural theology, flamboyant lifestyles of pastors or evangelists, emphasis on the collection of donations, personality cult around the televangelists, false prophecies, exploitation of members, etc.

Nevertheless, not everything found in televangelism is bad or negative. As Catholics we could imitate the zeal and the effort of televangelists when it comes to their preaching and attracting their audience and also their use of the mass media. In the Philippines, I admire some Protestants preaching inside the malls, buses, trains, etc. without being ashamed at all to what people will say. Of course, I am not in favor of their style of preaching is such places because those are not the proper places where the Word of God is supposed to be preached since nobody will listen to them, but their attitude, effort and zeal in preaching is very admirable. It would have been very nice if all Catholic preachers have that same zeal when they deliver their homilies during the celebration of the mass in the church or on television. ®

MEDIA: Promoter of Consumerism

Human beings are always in search for more and are never satisfied at any moment with what they have. This is where consumerism comes into the picture. Consumerism has the root word “consume” or “consumer” which would refer to “acquisition”, “accumulation”, “possession”, etc. This is the weakness of human beings, we are never contented with what we have and this becomes the “light at the end of the tunnel” for those people involved in the media and businessmen. They use media to amplify this “craving” and problems start to come in.

The more people are exposed to media the more needs are created in them. Commercials and advertisements are very good at convincing people to buy their products because they are capable of making people look at the external aspect of the person as the most important: beauty, health, contentment because of material things, etc. They are somehow indoctrinated by what media tells them and most of the times they never think that not all that the media presents to them are true and they buy their products because they feel something is lacking in their life if they do not have them. For these people indoctrinated by commercials and advertisements regard happiness and contentment as having material possessions, money, beauty, accessories, etc. and this is what drives companies and businessmen to produce new products for people to acquire. In short, luxury is presented initially by media in commercials and advertisements as a “desire” or a “craving” or a “fancy” for the people and eventually becomes a “need” or a “necessity” for them. And all these things are done for the sake of money.

But after all these “created needs” people crave for some more because media tells them to do so. Confronted by these situations, we must develop a healthy attitude face to face with what media presents as values. This means that each individual must have the personal conviction that material things or accessories do not create the personality of individuals. These may add something to the personality but it does not say all about a person; thus, we should not judge a person by his or her external appearance. We should know when things are really important to us. We can actually live normally even without these things. We should be aware therefore that not all we see on commercials and advertisements are true. Even if media tells us that we need a certain product but if we know that we do not actually need it then nobody should be compelled or forced to acquire it. ®

The Media-Savvy Pope

As I was surfing the internet the other day, I came across an article posted by ABC News on its website in April 2, 2005, about the late John Paul II and the heading goes like this: “Pope used media to his advantage: Media-Savvy John Paul II Got His Message Out Via Media and Technology”.

Pope John Paul II became a truly global figure, in part, because he knew how best to use the media -- whether it was television, radio or the Internet. In Poland, Mexico or America, wherever Pope John Paul II went, it became a media event, with all the pomp and circumstance of a royal wedding, all the hype of a Super Bowl, all the uproar of a rock concert. The combination of theology and technology made him the most media-savvy pope in history. John Paul II used technology to get his message out. Rather than railing against the press, as many public figures do, the pope used the media to deliver his message. John Paul II became pope in 1978, the same year instant global television first became available. Other popes, of course, in the past have used different kinds of communications but John Paul II was the first who fully understood that the church has a great opportunity to reach the entire world by using the mass media.

An estimated 1 billion people watched John Paul in 1987 when 23 satellites linked him to 16 countries in what was called "A Prayer for World Peace." Later that year, he took center stage at a Hollywood theater, holding a conversation via satellite with thousands of young Catholics in four cities. This pope also came out with a music video, featuring him singing and reciting psalms and the Gospels. He also recorded the rosary. He published best-selling books, and during John Paul's papacy, the Vatican went online, getting its own Web address.

It was John Paul II who approved some very rare, candid photo ops -- the pope on holiday, skiing, even wearing sneakers. In the early years of his papacy, the media credited John Paul II with helping bring about the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and broadcast his many messages condemning human rights abuses. Among his many accomplishments, Pope John Paul II will be remembered as a media-savvy pope who transformed the papacy and set the standard for his successor. ®

The Gaza Conflict

As of January 12, 2009, 898 Palestinians have been killed, 3,695 wounded since the Gaza war erupted last December 27, 2008. According to the media, almost half of those killed are women and children. On the side of Israel, 13 have died, 10 of them are soldiers. The war between Gaza and Israel is already on its 17th day and casualties on both sides continue to escalate. World leaders and even the UN had already intervened but to no avail. Missiles and rockets continue to be launched from both sides and Israeli ground troops are waging a fierce battle with Hamas militants in the city of Gaza.

Many are surprised and ask themselves why Israel went into war with Gaza. Israel has only one answer: to protect its people. Many did not agree with the move of Israel to invade Gaza because this would mean more civilians casualties caught in between the two warring nations but I think Israel has the reasons to do it. I am not against the Hamas militants who are branded as “terrorists” and I do not condone the death of civilians but I agree that Israel has to do something to protect its own people. I have been following up the news about the fighting in Gaza in these past days and I came to know that the decision of Israel to wage war with Hamas is triggered by the determination to put a stop to the horrible experiences of people in Southern Israel who are like living in ghost towns because they have been continuously taking cover in bomb shelters and bunkers to protect themselves from the missiles and rockets fired from Gaza.

I feel sorry about the civilians in Gaza, especially women and children, because they are used by Hamas as fronts to show to the media of Israel’s brutality. Of course, it is impossible not to have civilian casualties because Hamas militants live with these civilians, they store their weapons in ordinary houses and even use mosques as meeting areas and training ground of its army. In short, the civilians are somehow used as shields to protect themselves from being fired upon and to cover up their military operations. Who would not feel angry and disappointed with Israel if all what are seen on TV and newspapers are pictures of dead women and children? I am wondering why media only show to the people worldwide civilian casualties and not show even a single picture of Hamas casualty. There are speculations that Hamas are hiding their dead and injured comrades but I think this is just one way of media saying that: too much lives have been wasted, something has to be done! ®

Media Imperialism

Imperialism comes from the root word “emperor” which means a sovereign ruler of great power or rank, especially one who is ruling an empire. From such definition, “media imperialism” means that media is the sovereign ruler that has great power. This means that media has the absolute power, total control, dominion, etc.

Media has the control or power because the people behind the media and controlling it are actually powerful people. This is also the issue of media control and ownership. For example, in the Philippines, most of the TV networks and newspapers and even radio stations are owned by rich businessmen and they are actually the ones who have the power and control. Only a few are owned or run by the government or by the church. This is the reason why many programs aired or broadcasted by these privately owned broadcast and print media seldom if not never speak of the problems of the society like poverty, social justice, rights of workers, etc. Instead, they broadcast about luxury, the world of prestige, entertainment, etc. Poverty and its consequent problems are often ignored by the media, which is controlled by the rich and the elite. Thus, the media seems not to be bothered by these issues and problems.

I can say that there are two things that contribute to the power of media: rich people who are controlling and people who adhere to everything what media tells them because of colonial mentality. To confront these problems, I think that print and broadcast media owned or run by the government or the church should exert more effort to balance what is presented by the rich people and their powerful media. This means that they have to make more effort to make the people aware of the poverty, social injustices, rights of workers, etc.; they have to make effort to reach out to simple and ordinary people through the use of the media itself. And also, through the use of media, they have to promote patronizing our own and not just simply relying on others for everything. This is a challenge that can be done to confront colonial mentality that destroys the identity of a country or a culture. ®

Can the Church advertise?

Can the Church advertise? Absolutely yes! But we should put into mind that Church advertisement is not only about financial matters, gains or profits just like other advertisements are. It is important to remember what Martyn Percy says in his article “The Church in the Market Place: Advertising and Religion in a Secular Age” that we should distinguish “advertising” from “selling”. The article says: “Advertising might lead a consumer to a product, but it cannot compel him or her to purchase. Loosely translated into theological language, advertising cannot convert people, nor does it bring them to faith. It can, however, persuade the public to take a second look (i.e. to think again) or possibly even stimulate desire.” Church advertisements should be more of a “promotion” of values, faith, etc. or an “awakening” for the people in these aspects. These type of advertisements should inspire, evoke affection and impart useful public information and they should be used as effective means in communicating the Gospel to the people. Church influence, including advertising, can present the idea of “righteous” behavior to people for consideration to effect a positive change in their lives.

I would like to reiterate the idea that advertisements can inspire, evoke affection and impart useful public information. But advertising is not selling. Through advertising you can lead people but you cannot compel them. Church advertising cannot convert people nor does it bring them to faith but it can persuade them to take a second look, to let them think again or possibly even stimulate desire. I think every communicator, including myself, should take this idea into mind not just as an aim or goal of every Church advertisement but a responsibility – to lead and not to compel. ®